11. Views on Principle 6 of the Land Rights and
Responsibilities Statement

Principle 6

There should be wide community engagement in decisions about
land.

Question 9: Do you agree with Principle 6 of the Land
Rights and Responsibilities Statement? Please provide
comments.

11.1 50 (81%) respondents answered the first part of Question 9.
Of these, 40 agreed with Principle 5 of the Statement. Table 11.1
summarises views by category of respondent.

Table 11.1 Views on Principle 6 by category of
respondent

Category

Agree

Disagree

No. of respondents providing a view

National
NGOs

10

4

14

Private Sector and Professional Bodies

5

1

6

Community Organisations and their
Representative Bodies

5

0

5

Government and
NDPBs

1

0

1

Academic

1

0

1

Total Organisations

22

5

27

Total Individuals

18

5

23

Grand total

40

10

50

11.2 Most of the individuals and organisations who provided a
view agreed with Principle 6. Amongst the organisations, there was
less of a consensus amongst the National
NGOs, with
four of the 14 who responded disagreeing with the Principle.

11.3 40 respondents provided further relevant commentary in
response to Question 9, and their views are summarised below.

General views in support of Principle 6

11.4 Several respondents, from a range of sectors, expressed
strong support for Principle 6. It was welcomed as an approach to
aid better decision-making, enabling transparency in
decision-making, and supporting a shift in focus towards the public
interest and the common good. Described as part of a pro-active
planning system, wide community engagement in decisions about land
was perceived as underpinning collaborative relationships between
landowners, managers, users and communities.

11.5 An
NDPB
suggested that the Principle could directly benefit bio-diversity
by promoting wider connections with nature and the ownership of the
actions needed to address bio-diversity loss.

Views on possible additions to Principle 6

11.6 A few respondents considered that “community”
should encompass communities of interest, both wider (e.g. National
Farmers’ Union Scotland) and more concentrated (e.g. church
congregation), in addition to the local geographical community.

11.7 One National
NGO
suggested that the description of the Principle should make clear
reference to a human rights-based approach and Scotland’s
National Action Plan for Human Rights.

11.8 Another National
NGO
recommended that the Land Use Strategy be referenced in view of the
role of regional partnerships in decision-making on land.

11.9 An individual called for decisions on agricultural
management to be explicitly cited under the Principle.

Views on realising Principle 6

11.10 A recurring view was that for the Principle to be
effective and helpful, community engagement should not create undue
delay or complexities in decision-making.

11.11 Another common concern was that the community should be
fairly represented, and not simply by those whose voices are
loudest. A private company suggested that community representatives
should be democratically elected to take part in engagement. A
National
NGO
suggested that strategies for conflict resolution, including
mediation, should be a core part of an effective engagement
strategy.

11.12 A private company considered it important that all parties
should be clear on the purpose of any community engagement in terms
of the scope of decisions which can be influenced, in order to make
it meaningful and manage expectations.

11.13 A National
NGO called
for equal status for communities in planning decisions and for the
Scottish Government to work out a proportionate and tractable
approach to realising the ambition of community consultation as set
out in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016.

11.14 Another National
NGO
cautioned that community engagement should not detract from the
overall key aims and work of bodies such as those with charitable
objectives.

Views on the limitations of Principle 6

11.15 Those who opposed this Principle, and some of those who
supported it, identified potential limitations and challenges to
wide community engagement in decisions about land.

11.16 A recurring view was that community engagement should not
be a blanket requirement in every decision about land, but should
be utilised only in certain circumstances, such as a material
change to land use. If applied to day-to-day, routine farming
activities, for example, respondents considered that Principle 6
would be impractical.

11.17 A few respondents suggested that the aspiration of the
Principle was admirable, but in reality landowners should be able
to make their own decisions on land issues where there are factors
such as economic climate and market opportunities to consider.

11.18 Some respondents considered that Principle 6 will result
in delays in planning, for example, where community groups conflict
with each other.

11.19 One National
NGO did
not consider the wording of the Principle to reflect the Scottish
Government’s position on community engagement and called for
amendments to align with what will be contained in the forthcoming
Community Engagement Guidance. Another National
NGO
suggested changing the wording of the heading to, “There
should be thorough and effective community engagement in decisions
about land” in order to counteract community engagement being
interpreted differently to suit the needs of those undertaking the
engagement.